House Must Begin Dreaded Inquiry

Executive Ethics

January 04, 2004|By Andrew Fleischmann

In considering the future of the Rowland administration, every member of the state House of Representatives faces hard choices. The Connecticut Constitution lays upon us ``the sole power of impeaching.'' We must each determine whether the time to investigate potentially impeachable conduct has arrived -- particularly since Gov. John G. Rowland has clearly communicated his intention to hold onto office.

I dread an investigation. There will likely be testimony that highlights unacceptable behavior by powerful players in and around government -- and I will listen while sitting among colleagues who are honest and public-spirited and ethical. Even so, countless Connecticut citizens will come to believe that all who serve in government are just ``in it for themselves.''

Nonetheless, I believe that the House now has little choice. On the first day of a new term of office, every member of the General Assembly swears an oath to uphold and defend the Connecticut Constitution. That oath demands we make certain that those who run state government have not abused their power.

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Connecticut Constitution is silent regarding grounds for impeachment. In 1983 and '84, however, the House examined the basis for impeaching in the case of Hartford Probate Judge James H. Kinsella. The counsel to the committee that considered Kinsella's impeachment issued a thoughtful, detailed analysis. The conclusions were really quite simple, however. The grounds for impeachment are, in the words of the House Judiciary Committee that commenced President Nixon's impeachment process, ``abuse of power or serious breach of trust.''

Legislative investigation and impeachment are entirely separate from the role of the Justice Department. Its job is to prosecute violations of federal statutes. Our responsibility is to remove from office those who have, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, committed an ``abuse or violation of some public trust.''

So the central question is this: Do the known actions of Gov. Rowland and his administration over the past several years warrant an investigation to determine whether they represent an abuse of power?

House members should not only consider recent admissions that state contractors and state employees paid for improvements to the governor's vacation cottage. They must also consider the entire pattern of questionable conduct, starting with actions that led to ethics fines in the mid-1990s. They must consider connections between events -- for example, that one contractor who donated home improvements to the governor is also central to the bribery investigation that has already yielded a guilty plea from the governor's former deputy chief of staff. Abuse of power tends to concern not a single act but a series of actions, a pattern of corrupt conduct.

Two weeks ago, in response to questions from reporters, a handful of House Democrats said that they believed the time for an impeachment investigation had come. Shortly after, some Republican leaders implied that these individuals were seeking partisan advantage.

In fact, it is inaction, not investigation, which would best serve the political self-interest of Democrats. With an election coming up in November, why not run against a party with a wounded governor still in office?

Silence, not criticism, would also serve Democratic self-interest. Why bother to speak out when leading newspapers and prominent Republicans -- including members of the state's congressional delegation -- are already condemning the governor's unethical decisions?

Democrats have exercised a great deal of caution to date -- perhaps too much -- to avoid appearing partisan. And most Republicans have avoided overstating their defense of the governor for similar reasons.

The truth is that the ethical failures of the Rowland administration have moved into a realm that transcends party politics. Constituents have approached me as never before -- at the post office, the supermarket, restaurants -- and they are fed up. That includes countless people who voted for the governor and are now deeply disillusioned.

The framers of Connecticut's Constitution vested the legislature with the power of impeachment for a reason: to protect our democracy from officeholders who would abuse their powers. If the legislature fails to investigate whether such abuse has occurred, all of our state's democratic institutions will be tarred by the same brush of cynicism that now coats Gov. Rowland and his associates.

Respect for the Constitution, for public opinion and for the very legitimacy of our democratic institutions all demand that we begin an investigation into the unethical and potentially impeachable conduct of the Rowland administration.

State Rep. Andrew Fleischmann, D-West Hartford, is a member of the Government Administration and Elections Committee.